This ‘Tower of Worms' Is a Squirming Superorganism
Scientists spent months pointing their digital microscope at rotting apples and pears to finally catch a glimpse of these living towers formed by Caenorhabditis roundworms in an orchard that is just downhill from the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior's location in Konstanz, Germany. 'It wasn't that hard to find. It's just the people didn't have the interest or time or funding for this kind of research,' says biologist Daniela Perez, lead author of the study.
Perez and her team at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior then studied this behavior in a laboratory to learn more. To spur the towering, they placed groups of Caenorhabditis elegans in a dish without food, alongside a toothbrush bristle that could work as a scaffold. Dozens of worms quickly climbed on top of the bristle and one another to form a structure that moved in an eerily coordinated manner. The tower responded to the touch of a glass pipe by attempting to latch onto it; it stretched to bridge the gap between the bottom of the dish and its lid; and it even waved its tip around to probe the surrounding environment. The results were published Thursday in Current Biology.
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
Researchers had previously observed this towering in the lab but didn't know that it was an actual survival strategy in the wild. 'Discovering [this behavior] in wild populations is really important as it shows this is a part of how these animals live and not just a lab artifact,' says William Schafer, a geneticist at the University of Cambridge, who studies C. elegans and was not involved in the study.
Why do the worms do this? The researchers think towering helps worms set out to find richer food sources. When resources are limited, 'it probably makes sense for microscopic organisms to cooperate for dispersing by forming something bigger,' says the study's senior author Serena Ding. The towers could allow some of their members to reach new places or to hitchhike on other organisms such as fruit flies.
The bigger question is how the worms communicate within the towers. If the worms on top latch onto a fly, how do those at the bottom know to detach from where they're anchored? They could communicate chemically through pheromones and mechanically through movement patterns, Schafer suggests. Perez says her team plans to test this next. 'Every time we have a meeting, we end up with 10 new project ideas,' she says. 'There are so many directions we can take this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
14 hours ago
- Scientific American
Human Gut Bacteria Can Gather Up PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals'
Lurking in our nonstick pans, our rain jackets and even our drinking water are toxic compounds known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also called 'forever chemicals.' They can take hundreds of years to break down in the environment and are increasingly being detected in human blood and bodily tissues—where, research suggests, they can lead to several cancers and reproductive disorders, as well as thyroid disease and a weakened immune system. Scientists have been scrambling for ways to remove PFAS from our surroundings before they reach human bodies. But one team may now have found a way to tackle them afterward. Bacteria commonly found in the human gut could potentially be used to gather up PFAS and carry them out as waste, researchers suggest in a study published this week in Nature Microbiology. 'I think this research provides us a little glimmer of hope that it's not all doom and gloom' when it comes to the PFAS problem, says study co-author Kiran Patil, a molecular biologist at the University of Cambridge. 'Maybe our bacteria—that have been our companions for thousands of years—may already be helping us do something about it.' On supporting science journalism subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The team first tested how PFAS and other pollutants interacted with dozens of bacterial strains from the human gut and noticed that nine of them accumulated certain PFAS chemicals very effectively. When grown in laboratory conditions, these bacteria sopped up anywhere from 25 to 74 percent of the PFAS chemicals they were exposed to within 24 hours. The researchers suggest those particular strains could potentially bind to PFAS in the body and carry them out of the system. Previous work had shown that bacteria from contaminated soils can bind to PFAS. But those bacteria were exposed to much higher levels of the chemicals and had a relatively low capacity to sequester them—'so we had no reason to believe that gut bacteria would be anything special,' Patil says. Many researchers had assumed that PFAS molecules would cling to a bacterium's outer membrane rather than getting inside it, Patil says. Because the bacteria in the study were gathering more PFAS than could feasibly fit on their membrane, however, the team thought the chemicals must have actually entered the organisms. To confirm this, Patil and his colleagues used an imaging technique in which they rapidly froze the bacteria, then fired tiny beams of charged particles at them and analyzed what flew out. The researchers detected fluorine molecules—a telltale sign of PFAS—emerging from the bacteria. To find out whether bacteria would still collect PFAS chemicals inside a larger organism, the team used mice raised to lack a microbiome of their own and colonized the animals' gut with several human microbiome bacteria that were shown to absorb PFAS. After exposing the mice to various levels of a PFAS chemical, the researchers measured the amount of PFAS in the animals' feces and found that mice with PFAS-collecting bacteria excreted more of the toxic chemicals than those without the microorganisms did. This study shows just how deeply PFAS penetrate a body and its systems, says environmental epidemiologist Jesse Goodrich, who was not involved in the work. 'It is another piece in the puzzle that shows how PFAS can impact human health.' Applying the latest findings to humans would require more research. The team is now planning a clinical trial to test whether probiotics containing such bacteria could potentially supplement the human microbiome and decrease PFAS in our own species' gut. But the researchers note that such a trial would have far more variable factors than a highly controlled study in mice with lab-designed microbiomes. 'There's a huge variation in how the composition of the microbiome is set up within humans,' says the new study's lead author Anna Lindell, a toxicologist at the University of Cambridge. Further research could also observe the naturally occurring levels of these bacterial strains in people within the same community and measure the amount of PFAS in their bodies, Patil says. Such a study would help to clarify whether these bacteria lead to less PFAS in the human gut—or even in other parts of the body. Supplementing the body's natural bacteria to manage PFAS absorption is 'interesting and has potential,' Goodrich says. 'But ultimately, the best way to protect health is to prevent exposure in the first place.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Find Most Cats Sleep on Their Left Side – This Could Be Why
Cats sleep between 12 and 16 hours a day, and a new study suggests that most of them prefer to catch these Z's while lying on their left side. Cats are already known to prefer an elevated position when they nap, like the top of a cat tree, or somewhere in the stack of suitcases on your wardrobe, far out of reach from ground predators and cuddle-hungry owners. This behavior allows them to see any threats coming from afar. The study's authors reasoned that cats' sleeping positions – whether they lie on their left or right side – may serve similar functions. "Asymmetries in behavior can have advantages because both hemispheres of the brain specialize in different tasks," says behavioral neuroscientist Onur Güntürkün, from Ruhr University Bochum in Germany. Related: Güntürkün and his team analyzed the sleeping positions of cats in 408 carefully chosen YouTube videos, which revealed a statistically significant leftward bias. Two-thirds of the cats chose to lie on their left, a position that leaves their left visual field unobstructed by their own body. The left visual field feeds into the right brain, which is associated with spatial awareness, threat identification, and the coordination of quick escape. So this sleeping position may grant the cat a quicker reaction time when woken by a predator (or needy human). "Sleep is one of the most vulnerable states for an animal, as anti-predator vigilance is drastically reduced, especially in deep sleeping phases," the study's authors write. "We are inclined to believe that the significant leftward bias in sleeping position in cats may have been evolutionarily driven by hemispheric asymmetries of threat processing, but additional factors cannot be excluded." This research was published in Current Biology. Orcas Caught 'Kissing' For Two Minutes With Tongue Microbe 'Flavors' Tell Octopuses Which Babies Deserve Their Care A Mysterious Blob of Cold Water Defies Ocean Heat – Now We Know Why
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Scientific American
Record-Breaking Results Bring Fusion Power Closer to Reality
A twisting ribbon of hydrogen gas, many times hotter than the surface of the sun, has given scientists a tentative glimpse of the future of controlled nuclear fusion —a so-far theoretical source of relatively 'clean' and abundant energy that would be effectively fueled by seawater. The ribbon was a plasma inside Germany's Wendelstein 7-X, an advanced fusion reactor that set a record last May by magnetically 'bottling up' the superheated plasma for a whopping 43 seconds. That's many times longer than the device had achieved before. It's often joked that fusion is only 30 years away—and always will be. But the latest results indicate that scientists and engineers are finally gaining on that prediction. 'I think it's probably now about 15 to 20 years [away],' says University of Cambridge nuclear engineer Tony Roulstone, who wasn't involved in the Wendelstein experiments. 'The superconducting magnets [that the researchers are using to contain the plasma] are making the difference.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. And the latest Wendelstein result, while promising, has now been countered by British researchers. They say the large Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor near Oxford, England, achieved even longer containment times of up to 60 seconds in final experiments before its retirement in December 2023. These results have been kept quiet until now but are due to be published in a scientific journal soon. According to a press release from the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics in Germany, the as yet unpublished data make the Wendelstein and JET reactors 'joint leaders' in the scientific quest to continually operate a fusion reactor at extremely high temperatures. Even so, the press release notes that JET's plasma volume was three times larger than that of the Wendelstein reactor, which would have given JET an advantage—a not-so-subtle insinuation that, all other things being equal, the German project should be considered the true leader. This friendly rivalry highlights a long-standing competition between devices called stellarators, such as the Wendelstein 7-X, and others called tokamaks, such as JET. Both use different approaches to achieve a promising form of nuclear fusion called magnetic confinement, which aims to ignite a fusion reaction in a plasma of the neutron-heavy hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium. The latest results come after the successful fusion ignition in 2022 at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) near San Francisco, which used a very different method of fusion called inertial confinement. Researchers there applied giant lasers to a pea-sized pellet of deuterium and tritium, triggering a fusion reaction that gave off more energy than it consumed. (Replications of the experiment have since yielded even more energy.) The U.S. Department of Energy began constructing the NIF in the late 1990s, with the goal to develop inertial confinement as an alternative to testing thermonuclear bombs, and research for the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal still makes up most of the facility's work. But the ignition was an important milestone on the path toward controlled nuclear fusion—a 'holy grail' of science and engineering. 'The 2022 achievement of fusion ignition marks the first time humans have been able to demonstrate a controlled self-sustained burning fusion reaction in the laboratory—akin to lighting a match and that turning into a bonfire,' says plasma physicist Tammy Ma of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which operates the NIF. 'With every other fusion attempt prior, the lit match had fizzled.' The inertial confinement method used by the NIF—the largest and most powerful laser system in the world—may not be best suited for generating electricity, however (although it seems unparalleled for simulating thermonuclear bombs). The ignition in the fuel pellet did give off more energy than put into it by the NIF's 192 giant lasers. But the lasers themselves took more than 12 hours to charge before the experiment and consumed roughly 100 times the energy released by the fusing pellet. In contrast, calculations suggest a fusion power plant would have to ignite about 10 fuel pellets every second, continuously, for 24 hours a day to deliver utility-scale service. That's an immense engineering challenge but one accepted by several inertial fusion energy startups, such as Marvel Fusion in Germany; other start-ups, such as Xcimer Energy in the U.S., meanwhile, propose using a similar system to ignite just one fuel pellet every two seconds. Ma admits that the NIF approach faces difficulties, but she points out it's still the only fusion method on Earth to have demonstrated a net energy gain: 'Fusion energy, and particularly the inertial confinement approach to fusion, has huge potential, and it is imperative that we pursue it,' she says. Instead of igniting fuel pellets with lasers, most fusion power projects—like the Wendelstein 7-X and the JET reactor—have chosen a different path to nuclear fusion. Some of the most sophisticated, such as the giant ITER project being built in France, are tokamaks. These devices were first invented in the former Soviet Union and get their name from a Russian acronym for the doughnut-shaped rings of plasma they contain. They work by inducing a powerful electric current inside the superheated plasma doughnut to make it more magnetic and prevent it from striking and damaging the walls of the reactor chamber—the main challenge for the technology. The Wendelstein 7-X reactor, however, is a stellarator—it uses a related, albeit more complicated, design that doesn't induce an electric current in the plasma but instead tries to control it with powerful external magnets alone. The result is that the plasmas in stellarators are more stable within their magnetic bottles. Reactors like the Wendelstein 7-X aim to operate for a longer period of time than tokamaks can without damaging the reactor chamber. The Wendelstein researchers plan to soon exceed a minute and eventually to run the reactor continuously for more than half an hour. 'There's really nothing in the way to make it longer,' explains physicist Thomas Klinger, who leads the project at the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics. 'And then we are in an area where nobody has ever been before.' The overlooked results from the JET reactor reinforce the magnetic confinement approach, although it's still not certain if tokamaks or stellarators will be the ultimate winner in the race for controlled nuclear fusion. Plasma physicist Robert Wolf, who heads the optimization of the Wendelstein reactor, thinks future fusion reactors might somehow combine the stability of stellarators with the relative simplicity of tokamaks, but it's not clear how: 'From a scientific view, it is still a bit early to say.' Several private companies have joined the fusion race. One of the most advanced projects is from the Canadian firm General Fusion, which is based near Vancouver in British Columbia. The company hopes its unorthodox fusion reactor, which uses a hybrid technology called magnetized target fusion, or MTF, will be the first to feed electric power to the grid by the 'early to mid-2030s,' according to its chief strategy officer Megan Wilson. 'MTF is the fusion equivalent of a diesel engine: practical, durable and cost-effective,' she says. University of California, San Diego, nuclear engineer George Tynan says private money is flooding the field: 'The private sector is now putting in much more money than governments, so that might change things," he says. 'In these 'hard tech' problems, like space travel and so on, the private sector seems to be more willing to take more risk.' Tynan also cites Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology spin-off that plans to build a fusion power plant called ARC in Virginia. The proposed ARC reactor is a type of compact tokamak that intends to start producing up to 400 megawatts of electricity—enough to power about 150,000 homes—in the 'early 2030s,' according to a MIT News article. Roulstone thinks the superconducting electromagnets increasingly used in magnetic confinement reactors will prove to be a key technology. Such magnets are cooled with liquid helium to a few degrees above absolute zero so that they have no electrical resistance. The magnetic fields they create in that state are many times more powerful than those created by regular electromagnets, so they give researchers greater control over superheated hydrogen plasmas. In contrast, Roulstone fears the NIF's laser approach to fusion may be too complicated: 'I am a skeptic about whether inertial confinement will work,' he says. Tynan, too, is cautious about inertial confinement fusion, although he recognizes that NIF's fusion ignition was a scientific breakthrough: 'it demonstrates that one can produce net energy gain from a fusion reaction.' He sees 'viable physics' in both the magnet and laser approaches to nuclear fusion but warns that both ideas still face many years of experimentation and testing before they can be used to generate electricity. 'Both approaches still have significant engineering challenges,' Tynan says. 'I think it is plausible that both can work, but they both have a long way to go.'
